Home About us Authors Britannica.

com

Beyond Darwin: Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and the Social Theory of the Natural Selection of Humans
Kara Rogers - February 9, 2009
0

Share 9

Like

11

Charles Darwins theory of natural selection and concept of the struggle for existence, presented in his On the Origin of Species in 1859, captivated the minds of biologists. But Darwins ideas also played to the dangerously receptive imaginations of certain members of Victorian society, who threw caution to the wind and hastily carried Darwinian ideals beyond the realm of basic science. Darwin, likely having realized the problemsscientific and socialarising from the study of natural selection in humans, remained decidedly focused on plants and animals, at least publicly. But his cousin Francis Galton (pictured right), who by the 1860s was an established explorer and anthropologist, found the question of natural selection in humans an irresistible topic of study. So too did British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase survival of the fittest just five years after Darwins publication. Galton introduced his own controversial ideathe theory of eugenicsin 1883. At the time, Galton was probably thinking simply in terms of science, using his theory to describe selective breeding in humans as a means to improve the fitness of the human race. However, when his theory was united with Spencers socially inclined concept of survival, the result was social Darwinism, a gripping theory about competition for survival among human races and social classes. During Galtons erathe Victorian Age in Britaineugenics and social Darwinism seemed reasonable. The notion that filth and disease were associated with immorality was widespread. Furthermore, those who viewed themselves as superior, usually members of the upper classes of society, found that they could rely upon the theories put forth by Galton and Spencer to justify their discrimination against the lower classes. But while social Darwinism and eugenics flourished in popularity in the late 19th century, there was little evidence that solidified eugenics as anything more than a preferred theory of the morally elite. Support for the fundamental principles of eugenics relied on demonstrating that certain disadvantageous traits, such as disease and lack of intelligence, were inherited and that selecting against these traits would benefit society. Of course, the word gene and the field of genetics didnt exist in the 19th century. The gaps in knowledge concerning the mechanisms of inheritance as well as disease transmission made it impossible to tackle the basic scientific questions posed by eugenics. Even after the field of genetics was established in the early 1900s, another two decades passed before researchers finally demonstrated that selective breeding among humans could not rid society of transmittable diseases such as syphilis, nor could it eliminate conditions, such as alcoholism and mental illness. Between 1900 and 1930 in the United States, support for eugenics continued to grow. The fallacy of selective breeding in humans was only realized when the wealthy were suddenly poor, and the reality of genocide had demonstrated the extreme end of eugenicsin other words, with the shock of the Great Depression and the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, which ushered in the Holocaust. But the dissolution of eugenics in the United States was a slow process, because racial discrimination persisted. Involuntary sterilization laws, enacted in the early 1900s, were finally repealed in 1979. The lasting impacts of the deceit and flawed science associated with eugenics have been tremendous. The claims made by eugenicists were erroneous exaggerations drawn from Darwins work that ultimately endorsed racism and blatant acts of discrimination. Furthermore, because eugenics was so deeply intertwined with genetics, it is a constant companion among the hurdles associated with the advancement of genetic testing and gene therapy. Today, our decisions about genetic testing and how to act on the results of these tests are personalthey are not dictated by laws, there are no imposed pressures. As a result, our freedom of choice, among the most fundamental of our privileges, determines the natural selection of the human species. Bookmark on Digg Delicious this Recommend post on

Facebook share via Share Reddit with Tumblr Stumblers it Tweet about Subscribe it to Print the for Tell comments later a on Postedfriend in Health, History, Medicine, Science, Society this post

12 Responses to Beyond Darwin: Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and the Social Theory of the Natural Selection of Humans
DSampaolo: February 9, 2009 at 6:34 am Even if I dont really like the term social classes, I must admit that the theory of Social Darwinism seems to match the evolution of our society Gary M.: February 11, 2009 at 11:01 am The United States Supreme Court ruled Eugenics laws to be Constitutional in the case of Buck v Bell. Chief Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote in the opinion that three generations of idiots are enough. Raman: February 19, 2009 at 9:16 pm I wonder if religions other than christianity have objections to Darwins theories. the end of darwinism: February 22, 2009 at 9:37 pm the end of darwinism Mark Levering Smith: March 21, 2009 at 8:49 am All people die in the long run and eugenics is a way for the delusional to think they can control things that are beyond their perview. The US is, however, the greatest preveyor of violence in the history of humankind. Our invention of the atom bomb has led to humanity possibly one day destroying itself. In addition, if the rich want to get rid of the poor, who will slave for them. They are the real culprits and are weak. Read Nietzsche. m&m: March 21, 2009 at 1:45 pm Any conservative who doesnt want to see themselves as a species of human (animal) is afraid of Darwinism because its frightening to see themselves as anything other than a civilized person. ECO: March 22, 2009 at 10:21 am The problem is that it was the top-knotch evolution scientists who were promoting eugenics, not third-rate quacks. I mean Darwin Medalists and Nobel Laureates (Sherrington, Medawar.) The very same scientists who gave us Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis also gave us eugenics. See here: Darwinism-Eugenics Ted, Striper Fly Fishing: April 7, 2009 at 9:53 pm I thought survival of the fittest was from Darwin himself sees how little I know! Lets hope genetic testing always remains optional! Kevin Blankinship: August 30, 2009 at 10:03 am Social Darwinism is the religion of corporate America and the elite of this country. It basic idea is that ability is hereditary. As such, nepotism has made class lines harder than any other western nation, including Great Britain, which comes in second. Eugenics is probably part of this belief, but remains unspoken. But eugenics done right is good science. Moreover, it will be soon possible to genetically engineer people to improve the master race. I say improve because we already have a master race in this country. It is the professional-managerial social class, consisting of executives, doctors, and college professors, among others. They are increasingly being well-taken care of and can be found inside gated communities, Ivy League colleges, and other plush schools for the rich like the University of Michigan. For them, they live in a wonderland.

For the rest of us, it is declining opportunity and increased control, as we become reduced to livestock slaves to cater to this master race. Democracy will become increasingly hollow until it becomes dispensed with altogether, to reveal a police state governing a controlled workforce with no human rights. Social Darwinism kills compassion. It will also kill Christianity. Pastor Hadebe: November 23, 2009 at 2:16 am In amend of the statement I made I truely believe that the most important part is that we know that Jesus told us that in the lust days people will be selectives due to their richness and money and to me this is realty and we are strictly suppose to oppose the theory be cause it is satan who is pr who was driving the two theorists of social D AND Eugenics. Professor Funky: December 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm Thanks for your essay. Galtons eugenics, wedded to Spencers evolution may explain something but Spencer would have opposed legislation promoting eugenic goals. Also, depending on your definition, eugenics may still be going on today, based on freedom of choice. Some rather strange comments, like those of Mr. Blankenship both condemning social Darwinism as the religion of corporate America, while advocating it as a basically sound idea. Eugenics is not science because science seeks only to understand, not to improve; the latter is an ethical (or unethical) imperative requiring its own kind of reflection. As for Pastor Hadebe, Sir; I applaud your religious faith but I fear you give religious people a bad name when you show absolutely no ability to understand or respond to the basic ideas presented. Excuse me if I am being rude but do you always use your faith as an excuse for not using your brain? Another writer mentions Nietzsche and seems to imply that if the weak die, all the better for society. Have you ever heard the expression, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (stress on the little). Please read more Nietzsche I dont think he was advocating what you think! djsee4: February 15, 2010 at 5:58 pm I agree that high minded (possibly religious) people do not want to be compared to animals like Darwinism suggests. We use money to purchase our belongings (maybe on the internet) from all over the world whereas animals only have microcosm localized competitive resources. If it is true, and I quote, MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVILS, there is much to be learned on what items we individually place great value on. It will ultimately shape society. With this advent you will find groups who share those properties within your social circle. Looking beyond our own social circle is distinctly a human quality that leads to widening diversity and many great squabbles. Beyond natural laws mankind has created a set of just social laws unique to that culture. Layers of complexity create loopholes that cannot be shut down until after the effects of them are discovered. You might say the risk takers are creatively pushing the known limits and our society is fast to calculate repercussions. This is the evolution of social Darwinism created from a niche perspective. Any of us have the ability to break our social norms created for us and as you might expect it is quite rare because we are most generally a product of a stereotype.

Leave a reply
1 comments
Add a comment...

Comment using... Michael Brown Hey, djsee4: It's "the LOVE of money..." that is the root of all evil (or evils.) Try again. Reply ! Like ! April 15 at 1:51pm
Facebook social plugin

Recent Posts Venice of the North: Brugge (Picture of the Day) by Britannica Editors The Art of Illustrating Extinct Life (Picture of the Day) by Britannica Editors The Easybeats, "Friday on My Mind" (Great Moments in Pop Music History) by Gregory McNamee Saturn as Viewed from the Cassini Orbiter (Picture of the Day) by Britannica Editors Cephalopod Camouflage: The Ultimate Invisibility Cloak by Kara Rogers Categories 5 Questions Arts & Entertainment Britannica Top 10s History & Society Picture of the Day Science & Technology Science Up Front Special Features Travel & Geography

Search

Encyclo. Britannica

Britannica

britannica The sperm #whale has a big head that weighs a ton. (Actually, it weighs *a lot* more than that.) bit.ly/s6tRkH #marinelife
5 days ago ! reply ! retweet ! favorite

britannica Heh. New shampoo marketing tag line? RT @BranJustice: RT @PrincessProbz: My hair has more volume than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
5 days ago ! reply ! retweet ! favorite

britannica RT @brainpicker: Democracy & Despotism Join the conversation

What is Britannica Blog? Britannica Blog is a place for smart, lively conversations about a broad range of topics. Art, science, history, current events its all grist for the mill. Weve given our writers encouragement and a lot of freedom, so the opinions here are theirs, not the companys. Please jump in and add your own thoughts.

Feedback: blogs@eb.com 2006-2011 Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc. Britannica.com | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use/Legal Notices | Blog Archive | Contact Us